This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

In November 2010, the nation had a massive right-leaning correction to two, very large left-leaning previous elections.

however, the White House and the Senate turn over every 4 and 6 years respectively. The House turns over every two.

Ergo, the President and Senate are reflective of strong Democrat elections, whereas the House is reflective of a strong Republican election.

I posit, therefore, that a Grand Bargain was never a real possibility. To say that the two sides are too far apart isn't really a full explanation; but rather that in the context of a large deal, there never was any serious overlap. The math makes it nigh impossible to talk about large deficit reduction without reforming the entitlements, but Democrats are unwilling to reform the entitlements without tax hikes - and the minimum that they will accept is higher than the maximum that Republicans will accept. Both sides put forth their "best offer" and know that they are compromising as much as they possibly can - while both best offers remain too far apart, and each accuses the other of not compromising.

In short, this is something that will have to be decided by the 2012 election - because at current our government, split between the sections that were a reaction to George Bush and the section that was a reaction to Barack Obama, is simply incapable of finding ground both can stand on.

Re: Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

In November 2010, the nation had a massive right-leaning correction to two, very large left-leaning previous elections.

however, the White House and the Senate turn over every 4 and 6 years respectively. The House turns over every two.

Ergo, the President and Senate are reflective of strong Democrat elections, whereas the House is reflective of a strong Republican election.

I posit, therefore, that a Grand Bargain was never a real possibility. To say that the two sides are too far apart isn't really a full explanation; but rather that in the context of a large deal, there never was any serious overlap. The math makes it nigh impossible to talk about large deficit reduction without reforming the entitlements, but Democrats are unwilling to reform the entitlements without tax hikes - and the minimum that they will accept is higher than the maximum that Republicans will accept. Both sides put forth their "best offer" and know that they are compromising as much as they possibly can - while both best offers remain too far apart, and each accuses the other of not compromising.

In short, this is something that will have to be decided by the 2012 election - because at current our government, split between the sections that were a reaction to George Bush and the section that was a reaction to Barack Obama, is simply incapable of finding ground both can stand on.

How about reform with tax hikes? Everyone is unhappy, and likely the right course. Being to beholden to your ideaology is as bad or worse than having no ideology at all.

BTW, as both parties have held all the power from time to time, I submit having all the power almost never gets you all you want. Why? Because a lot talk isn't really serious. It's meant to keep the faithful with you, those who never measure you by what you do, but by what you say.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

Whether or not a deal is possible is irrelevent.. It is who will pay the highest price politically for not cooperating on the issue.. Ergo not doing their job they were elected to do..

Per your CNN Poll in another thread.. 73% of the people want the taxes increased on everyone that makes 250k or more a year.. That isn't the republican view.. It isn't smart to disagree with such a large portion of the people..

61% or something very close will blame the republicans if a deal isn't reached.. Again your CNN poll..

So.. Not very good numbers.. Republicans raised the debt ceiling for Bush like 7 or 8 times.. They look like a horses butt by not doing it now.. Their obvious cut taxes for rich while making the poor pay more for stuff or cut benefits, isn't going to get them all that far politically.. If republicans want to spend most of their time polishing the knobs of the rich and big business, then that is their choice.. But don't think for a moment that the rest of america doesn't see it for what it is.. Even if you do not..

Re: Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

we've seen the issue comes to the matter of the amount. Democrats minimum acceptable is higher than Republicans Max. Both sides are from Base Elections.

Only in rhetoric. Neither will cut too far if they can't blame it on the other. Neither has. History CP, history.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

Only if the elected actually answered to the people they represent, and not some stupid-ass pledge card they signed.

The pledge causes them some problems, to be sure. However, they would still need to blame the other in order to actually do something. They have to appease the electorial beast.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

The pledge causes them some problems, to be sure. However, they would still need to blame the other in order to actually do something. They have to appease the electorial beast.

No, Boo. They honest to GOD don't. He didn't. I just posted in another thread, this very point. The President didn't try to pander to anybody. He was scaring us, with all the **** he was giving up. And they said No.

So, no. They don't HAVE to do anything except strap on a pair. They couldn't, they didn't, and nobody will forget for a very long time that the summer of 2011 was America being held hostage by a bunch of eunuchs kissing up to big money.

Re: Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

In November 2010, the nation had a massive right-leaning correction to two, very large left-leaning previous elections.

however, the White House and the Senate turn over every 4 and 6 years respectively. The House turns over every two.

Ergo, the President and Senate are reflective of strong Democrat elections, whereas the House is reflective of a strong Republican election.

I posit, therefore, that a Grand Bargain was never a real possibility. To say that the two sides are too far apart isn't really a full explanation; but rather that in the context of a large deal, there never was any serious overlap. The math makes it nigh impossible to talk about large deficit reduction without reforming the entitlements, but Democrats are unwilling to reform the entitlements without tax hikes - and the minimum that they will accept is higher than the maximum that Republicans will accept. Both sides put forth their "best offer" and know that they are compromising as much as they possibly can - while both best offers remain too far apart, and each accuses the other of not compromising.

In short, this is something that will have to be decided by the 2012 election - because at current our government, split between the sections that were a reaction to George Bush and the section that was a reaction to Barack Obama, is simply incapable of finding ground both can stand on.

One side has convinced themselves its a income problem and therefore we should tax the **** out of the rich to solve it. The other is knows its a spending problem and knows that significant cuts should be made so that way we can pay our debts and not wind up in this mess again. Since there is a significant mix of those who knows its a spending problem the side that views this as a income problem will not be able to increase taxes.

Seeing how both sides raised the debt ceiling a **** load of times I am wondering if this is merely a distraction and when all is said and done they will just increase the debt ceiling again with no concern over the fact we are in severe debt.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

Re: Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

Originally Posted by jamesrage

One side has convinced themselves its a income problem and therefore we should tax the **** out of the rich to solve it. The other is knows its a spending problem and knows that significant cuts should be made so that way we can pay our debts and not wind up in this mess again. Since there is a significant mix of those who knows its a spending problem the side that views this as a income problem will not be able to increase taxes.

Seeing how both sides raised the debt ceiling a **** load of times I am wondering if this is merely a distraction and when all is said and done they will just increase the debt ceiling again with no concern over the fact we are in severe debt.

Define tax the **** out of. This is important as no one has suggested any serious tax increases. This is just partisan hyperbole, right?

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.